Hacker News Reader

haven't done the math, but two things come to mind.

1) the distribution is not random. Satelites are more densely distributed in certain diserable orbits, than in others.

2) you can not compare indivdual risks with societal-wide risks.

1. While the orbits might be bunched up, the orbital surface area is bigger than the earth — and satellites are in many different orbital altitudes. So, I wanted to simplify in order to get an order of magnitude estimate.

2. The risk of an individual dying in a car crash is being compared to the risk of any satellite being hit. Of course, people die every day in car crashes and satellites don’t get hit often. The point was to give a sense of the magnitude of acceptable risk.

Because that’s what I’m struggling with — how big of a problem is this at the moment?

The ISS (which always has 3+ humans on it) pretty regularly has to maneuver to avoid debris nowadays (NASA is conservative and will do so if a big window has a ~.01% chance of seeing debris). You can count on your hands the number of times a major collision has occurred since the 90s, but that's probably partly because now more than ever we actively track and avoid debris.

Satellites can also be multi-million to multi-billion dollar assets. They're less like cars and more like oil-rigs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com